EPA loses and Citizens can now challenge in court EPA rulings
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
March 21, 2012 4:08pm CST
In the case Sackett v. EPA, 10-1062 the Supreme Court ruled that the Sacketts have the right to challenge an EPA compliance order. The Sacketts were in the process of building a house when the EPA issued a compliance order claiming that the land they were building on was a wetland. The EPA cited the fact that at certain times of the year there was standing water on the property. The Sacketts were then told to restore the land and plants or face a $32,000 a day fine. The Sacketts then tried to challenge the EPA in court but were told that the EPA rules were not subject to judicial review. This is what they challenged saying that their Due Process rights were denied them. The Supreme court Agreed in a unanimous ruling.
What this menas for the EPA is that they will have to spend more time studying the problem before issuing a Compliance Order and then be ready to go to court. The EPA issues about 1500 compliance Orders a year. This is a victory for the little guy against Big Government.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-21/epa-enforcement-power-cut-by-u-dot-s-dot-high-court-in-wetlands-case
1 person likes this
5 responses
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
26 Mar 12
I heard that the EPA told them to build a drainage ditch, then cited them for doing so. Forgot where I heard it, on a documentary sort of show.
The NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW is what should concern us all. Especially when the Constitution is pretty clear that no one can be deprived of their property without due process.
I'm glad to hear this. Maybe, just maybe we have a court that will right other wrongs. Like Obamacare.
@StaticxErosion (26)
• United States
22 Mar 12
That's great and all. And maybe I'm reading this wrong, but maybe the EPA had a point. Sure, the Sacketts' rights were upheld, but EPA might have had a point in trying to preserve the wetlands. Now I am not an 'ecofreak', but I believe that we should all do a little bit to make sure we don't stray too far from our own habitats into the habitats of other animals. I don't know much about the wetlands or anything else of the sort (so I may be overstepping the boundaries of my knowledge a bit here), but they do seem to be a pretty important part of the world's ecosystem. If these people continue to infringe upon this habitat, won't that mean they are destroying the life held within it?
EPA could come back and strengthen their argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will win now.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
22 Mar 12
A wet land is defined as any piece of that the during part of the year has a substantial amount of water on it. In other words if your property has any standing water on your property the EPA could claim it as a wet land. With the Sackettts most of the time the land is dry but yet an EPA Employee claimed that it was a wet land and told them to restore it with no due process. This ruling gives people and companies the right to challenge the EPA in court and have their case heard.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
26 Mar 12
This case was a travesty and I was overjoyed to see that they won their case. It's these little encroachment upon rights that the government starts with and it grows and grows from there. A refreshing bit of common sense and upholding the rights of the citizen here.
@jgmarble5050 (45)
• United States
22 Mar 12
For once the little guy "you and I" comes out on top. Awesome decision.
@honest_efforts100 (1607)
• India
5 Jul 12
Citizens can now challenge to courts to fight against their human rights. Rich people and some government don’t care about the poor people because they are so corrupt. They are craving for wealth without even thinking who will sacrifice. I hope citizens will not be scared to fight for their rights.
